The definition of "Excellent"

Javaness · **#21**

An idiot can try to learn Go one move at a time, I see some people trying to do this, they are idiots.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Without general advice like, e.g., principles, teaching remains on a level of teaching by examples and giving specific comments per example only. Since extremely many shapes / positions exist, the reader is left with these choices:

a) read very many examples so that he knows those or very similar examples occurring in his games by heart

b) develop general advice (e.g., in the form of principles or as subconscious knowledge, depending on his preferred thinking style) by himself, i.e., complete the teaching work, which the book author failed to provide, by means of auto-didactic teaching.

Explaining most positions is better than explaining only a couple of example positions. Providing general advice is better than leaving the work of developing general advice to the readers.

Therefore it is essential for each book and each review whether or not the book does teach also the general or only the specific.

Teaching only specific examples might be excellent for itself but misses the other half of what good teaching should do, i.e., is also extremely poor concerning the generalization part.

However, so far we do not know yet IF the book does give generalized advice. Maybe it does?

RobertJasiek · **#22**

mohsart wrote:

excellent does not mean complete, a book can be excellent in what it wants to teach, that can be a subset of eg Go, or Haengma

Yes. That's why my book reviews have a third rating "aims achievement". However, the book in question carries the title This is Haengma, which promises to teach haengma fully and not partially. That the author tries (apparently hard) to define haengma as well as he can confirms the intention to teach it fully.

RobertJasiek · **#23**

Javaness wrote:

An idiot can try to learn Go one move at a time, I see some people trying to do this, they are idiots.

They are learners in how to learn better.

RobertJasiek · **#24**

Monadology wrote:

Word meanings are a great deal more variable and fuzzy

Sure - but, in the context of a quality stating poll and related review thread, the standard meaning must be assumed because it is the only obvious meaning in such a context (until a meta-discussion mentions also other usages in other contexts like John then did; then new meanings could occur due to those other contexts).

pwaldron · **#25**

RobertJasiek wrote:

To possibly find out that there might not be such a generalized advice at all? This is a review thread, so the reviewer should explain why he calls something excellent.

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

RobertJasiek · **#26**

If the internet translates correctly as "If you had remained silent, you would have been a philosopher.", then what do you want to tell with that?

mohsart · **#27**

RobertJasiek wrote:

the book in question carries the title This is Haengma, which promises to teach haengma fully and not partially.

Consider, for example...
Go - A Complete Introduction to the Game by Cho Chikun
The Chinese Opening by Masao Kato
The Endgame by James Davies and Tomoko Ogawa

Reading a title, I'd take "This is" or "The" or "A complete" etc as a indication of the book being rather a introduction to the subject than something that intends to cover all aspects, unless maybe it comes in 3+ volumes.
Before buying a book, I prefer to not only read the title and guess what it's about, but also read a couple of rewievs, the back of the book and browse the content of it to see what it's about.

As for This is Haengma, the preface says:
"I want to make it as simple as possible so that everyone can understand it easily" which gives me the impression that it is a introduction.
I also get the impression that Haengma is to wide a subject to be fully covered in one book of 250 pages.

I haven't yet read the book myself, but I've been to a seminar Mr Kim held on Haengma, and though not at all complete, not even a complete introduction, I consider it quite excellent.

/Mats

John Fairbairn · **#28**

Evaluative words in languages are fuzzy for good reason. Fuzziness allows us to superimpose social behaviour, such as compromise, politeness, humility, humour, encouragement, disengagement, etc. Nuances also develop which are sensed naturally by most native speakers but which are missed by dictionaries and many foreigners.

In contrast, number systems, lists or strict definitions, while useful in contexts such as scientific research, are tyrannical in normal social intercourse (e.g. L19). The tyrant in question is, of course, the person trying to impose his own system on the rest of us.

Out of respect for freedom-loving fellow L19ers, I would never normally attempt to define excellence.

RobertJasiek · **#29**

Suggesting to use clearer language is not tyranny but advertisement for easier factual understanding.

kirkmc · **#30**

RobertJasiek wrote:

Suggesting to use clearer language is not tyranny but advertisement for easier factual understanding.

Troll.

RobertJasiek · **#31**

Use related arguments instead of meta-discussion starting keywords!

Kirby · **#32**

IMO, the more factual information the reviewer provides, the more useful it is. So if someone says that something is "excellent", adding information about why they believe that it is excellent is, if nothing else, useful to the audience.

However, a review is, by its nature, a summary. As such, sometimes generalized statements end up in reviews. If someone simply says, "This was a good book", it might be reason to buy the book and read it if you trust the person's opinion. The more rationale they have for saying why something is a good book, the more you might be inclined to agree with them (well, if you agree with their rationale).

If you want precisely what the book says, without any generalized statements, then I think you are not looking for a review so much as an excerpt. Excerpts from books are sometimes more useful than reviews, if this is the type of information that you desire.

TMark · **#33**

Many years ago, on rec.games.go, there appeared a troll. Whenever he could, he would divert the discussions or debates into precise definitions of words, to evade the point. Now I agree that Robert is not trying, conciously, to avoid the debate here, but, to my untrained eye, trying to nail jelly to the ceiling by endless discussions of the meanings of particular words, terms and concepts and to control whatever is said in particular fora. As I believe someone said on the subject of jazz, if you need it defined, you don't know what it is. Trying to hijack a discussion of the Oriental concept of thickness and make it fit the definition you have of influence is just part of the problem. I am sorry if this is seen as a personal attack, but it is not. What I like here is the free flow of debate and not a straight-jacket of absolutes.

Best wishes.

kirkmc · **#34**

I totally agree with TMark. I'm quite frankly tired of Robert's annoying posts. I feel sorry for someone who has a mind like his who can never see any gray in the world, only black and white. And I feel it's a big waste of time on this forum as his endless hair-splitting pollutes thread after thread (or even creates new threads, like this one).

As for reviews, I totally agree that a review is a summary. Part of how I earn my living is by writing reviews: of books, music, software, etc. I've probably written and published nearly a thousand reviews. And I've never had a comment that a word like "excellent" was vague or imprecise. People reading reviews know what they will be seeing in reviews, and they don't dissect them word by word. They also know that reviews are subjective, and that they may not agree with everything the reviewer says. For those who can't understand such concepts, life must be very difficult reading reviews anywhere.

daal · **#35**

While Robert does have a stubborn streak, I believe that he splits hairs not for the sake of it, but rather because he feels that the distinctions he goes on and on about are in fact important.

In this case, I understand Robert's point to be that if we give the highest rank (excellent) to everything we like, then after a while this rank will become deflated and lose it's meaning. How then will we be able to say that something (for example Robert's next book) is truly excellent?

One way, which I suspect Robert yearns for, would be to have a set of standards or criteria for each rating. If you look at Robert's book ratings, you see that he has implemented the following method:

Robert Jasiek's Go Book Reviews wrote:

For less confusion now I use a simplified rating scale with the following values:
++ very good
+ in between average and very good
o average
- in between very bad and average
-- very bad

Rank Improvement is after reading once. Most books qualify as - or -- because they are considerably away from ++ books.

Topic Coverage refers to covering all 9p knowledge. Thus most books qualify as --, which is harsh but necessary:)

Aims' Achievement generously assumes the author to have intended the teaching result. So many books should have + or ++.

As far as a numerical rating system goes, this one tells us more about what the reviewer thinks the buyer will get for his money than does a 1-5 scale.

On the other hand, a reviewer is not typically limited to 5 words, and when he writes for example that a book is in his opinion "excellent," then we should assume that this is what he means.

RobertJasiek · **#36**

Not surprisingly, I disagree with quite something of what you, TMark and kirkmc, say. I am glad though that unfriendly "Troll!" crying is replaced by friendly exchange of arguments.

John Fairbairn · **#37**

I don't consider calling someone a troll an ad hominem attack, unless you mean it in the fairy story sense of ugly troll.

But I don't regard Robert as a troll anyway (jb certainly was). It is easy to see that his method of discourse can be irritating, and maybe troll-like to some people, but the real problem is simply that it is misguided. By ignoring the more usual methods of discourse he is making it hard for other people to be receptive to his opinions. That is unfortunate because he clearly has a lot to contribute. Most of us make concessions to other people when we talk to them, such as treating your boss as the fount of wisdom when you know he's really talking through his other end. I don't think Robert has ever made any concession here, and that creates a hard-edged impression which the reader has to work hard to overcome. Not everyone wants to make the effort in a light-hearted forum. I suspect most of us here feel that on L19 we are meant to be relaxing in the common room, not working in the research lab.

One big plus point for Robert, in my book, for which I forgive a lot, is that he doesn't hide behind a pseudonym.

RobertJasiek · **#38**

John Fairbairn wrote:

I don't think Robert has ever made any concession here.

You just didn't notice.

John Fairbairn · **#39**

Quote:

You just didn't notice.

Making this sort of comment invites the mathematical QED.

And something's a bit pointless if it's not noticeable.

hyperpape · **#40**

@hanekomu Moderators moved this thread from John Fairbairn's review, because there it was off topic.

The definition of "Excellent"

Who is online